On Thursday 10 March 2005 09:12, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 20:52 +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
Are you sure this is really the best option in this instance?
Sometimes, static data initialisation is more efficient than
code-based manual initialisation, especially when the
Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not convinced about the practicality of converting all static
initialisations to code-based initialisations though
This is the first one I recall seeing. All the other conversions were replacing
static spinlock_t lock = SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED;
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, linux-os wrote:
We need to retain the spin_lock_init(lock) because not all spin-locks
are allocated at compile-time. They might be allocated from kmalloc()
on startup, probably in a structure, along with other so-called
global data.
Not to worry my good man, it's not
